analyze_resume

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the internal process (PDF text extraction and structuring) and the return content (skills and experience), but it omits details about error handling, read-only nature, or any side effects. It offers some transparency but not complete coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct and well-organized: a one-sentence overview followed by Args and Returns sections. Every piece of information is relevant and presented clearly without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description gives sufficient context about purpose and key output aspects. It could mention error cases or prerequisites (e.g., resume must be uploaded), but the current level is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only provides the type string for student_id, but the description adds critical semantic meaning by specifying it is the student's UUID. This clarifies the expected format, though it doesn't specify validity requirements or where to obtain the ID.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's action (analyze) and resource (a student's resume), adding specificity with 'PDF text extraction and structuring'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_github and analyze_student.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (for resume analysis), but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. The scope is well-defined, but it lacks direct guidance on when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.